The U.S. Supreme Court case Hussman v. Durham in 1896 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of certain deeds. The plaintiff, Hussman, claimed that he was the rightful owner of a piece of property based on a deed from one John S. Williams to his father, which was then passed down to him through inheritance upon his father's death. However, the defendant, Durham argued that this deed was invalid because it had not been properly recorded at the time it was made and thus did not provide legal title to the property in question. Durham also produced an alternative chain of title for himself stemming from another party entirely - Thomas J.C Fagg - who allegedly bought said land at auction after its foreclosure due to unpaid taxes by Williams. The court ruled in favor of Durham stating that since there were no records showing payment or settlement for those taxes by either Williams or Hussman’s father before Fagg’s purchase; hence they could not claim superior right over him (Fagg). Therefore, any subsequent transfer from Fagg would be considered valid including Durham's acquisition.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hussman v. Durham argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant laws regarding property rights and inheritance. The dissenting justices believed that, under Missouri law, a married woman had an absolute right to her separate property, which included any income or profits derived from such property during marriage. They contended that this principle should have been applied in favor of Mrs. Durham since she inherited the bonds at issue as part of her separate estate before marrying Mr. Hussman. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "profits" under Missouri law and asserted that interest accrued on bonds should be considered as such rather than being treated as principal amount subject to division upon divorce or death according to marital laws applicable at those times.